second part analysis in Pennsylvania

2026If the court determines that there are grounds to terminate parental rights under Section 2511(a), the court must “engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and - 11 - J-S46032-25 welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.” In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007).

2026If the court determines that there are grounds to terminate parental - 17 - J-A04020-26 rights under Section 2511(a), the court must “engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.” In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007).

2025Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child . . . . -7- J-S21015-25 In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-62 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820 , 830 (Pa. Super. 2022).

2024Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child[.] In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-262 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2020Moreover, only if a court determines that a parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, pursuant to Section 2511(a), does a court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b)[.] Accordingly, while both Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b) direct us to evaluate the “needs and welfare of the child,” we are required to resolve the analysis relative to Section 2511(a)(8), prior to addressing the “needs and welfare” of [the Children], as proscribed by Section 2511(b)[.] In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d at 1008-1009 (internal citations and some quotation mar

2015See In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1009 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (providing that, once a court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a), the court then conducts the second part of the analysis, pursuant to Section 2511(b), to determine “the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.”).

2024Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Matter of Adoption Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).

2023Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child[.] In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-262 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). -6- J-A29037-22 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2

2024Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Matter of Adoption Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).

2023Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child[.] In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-262 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). -6- J-A29037-22 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2

2023In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2023In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). -5- J-S42031-22 To satisfy Section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner must show three components: (1) that the child has been removed from the care of the parent for at least 12 months; (2) that the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child still exist; and (3) that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

2023When the trial court considers a child’s needs and welfare, the “extent of any [parental] bond analysis ... necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. 2008).

2023When the trial court considers a child’s needs and welfare, the “extent of any [parental] bond analysis ... necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. 2008).

2022In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 401 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) Here, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), which provides: (a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. 23 Pa

2022In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2025This Court “need only agree with [the orphans’ court] as to any one subsection of [Section 2511(a), in addition to Section 2511(b),] to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).

2025“We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).

2015“The second part of the test is satisfied when the victim’s death is the natural or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.” Nunn, 947 A.2d at 760 . “[T]he results of the defendant’s actions cannot be so extraordinarily remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally responsible.” Id.

2015“The second part of the test is satisfied when the victim’s death is the natural or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.” Nunn, 947 A.2d at 760 . “[T]he results of the defendant’s actions cannot be so extraordinarily remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally responsible.” Id.

2024If the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his parental rights, the court then engages in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b), a determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); B.J.Z., 207 A.3d at 921 ; J.N.M., 177 A.3d at 942 ; I.E.P., 87 A.3d at 344 .

2021See B.J.Z., 207 A.3d at 921 (stating, “[o]nly if the [trial] court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the [trial] court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b)”).

2021See In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 850 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, does the orphans’ court and the reviewing court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b)). -7- J-A02024-21 September 17, 2018, through early July 23, 2020, [Mother] took no documented action or exerted any efforts to maintain contact with [C]hild other than sporadic text requests to see [C]hild.” Id.

2021See In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 850 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, does the orphans’ court and the reviewing court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b)). -7- J-A02024-21 September 17, 2018, through early July 23, 2020, [Mother] took no documented action or exerted any efforts to maintain contact with [C]hild other than sporadic text requests to see [C]hild.” Id.

2026If the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her pareK.ntal rights, the court then engages in “the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026If the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, the court then engages in “the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 705 (Pa.Super. 2021) (cleaned up).

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 705 (Pa.Super. 2021) (cleaned up).

2026Interest of M.K.L., 354 A.3d at 60 (some citations modified); see also Matter of Adoption of L.C.J.W., 311 A.3d at 48 (“Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to [Section] 2511(b)” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“The needs and welfare of the child are a discrete consideration to be determined only after the statutory requirements for termination have been met.”). - 22 - J-S15029-26 Instantly, we consider

2018Further, the statute “outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be considered unfit and have his parental rights terminated.” In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2019C.M.S., [ 884 A.2d 1284 , 1286–87 (Pa. Super. 2005)]; A.C.H., [ 803 A.2d 224, 229 (Pa. Super. 2002) ]; B.L.L.

2017C.M.S., supra, [ 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa.Super. 2005)]; A.C.H., supra, [ 803 A.2d 224 , - 12 - J.

2026Under Section 2511(b), the court must assess evidence of the child’s needs and welfare, “giving primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

2025Under Section 2511(b), the court must assess evidence of the child’s needs and welfare, “giving primary consideration to the developmental, physical and -3- J-A29039-24 emotional needs and welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

2023See, e.g., In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super. 2011), (“Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.”), quoting In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (emphasis added).

2023See, e.g., In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super. 2011), (“Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.”), quoting In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (emphasis added).

2025“Criminal responsibility may be properly assessed against an individual whose conduct was a direct and substantial factor in producing the death even though other factors combined with that conduct to achieve the result.” Long, 624 A.2d at 203 [.] The second part of the test is satisfied when the victim’s death is the natural or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.

2020“Criminal responsibility may be properly assessed against an individual whose conduct was a direct and substantial factor in producing the death even though other factors combined with that conduct to achieve the result.” Commonwealth v. Long, 624 A.2d 200, 203 (Pa. Super. 1993)[.] The second part of the test is satisfied when the victim’s death is the natural or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.

2025In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2020One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond. - 13 - J-S23016-20 Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d at 1215 (citation omitted).

2026Section 2511(b) Assuming we could overlook the significant shortcomings in CYF’s presentation and the orphans’ court’s factual findings under section 2511(a) detailed above, we would nevertheless be compelled to vacate the termination decrees based upon CYF’s failure to adduce information in support of its case under section 2511(b) and the orphans’ court’s failure to make any of the findings or determinations required by that provision. “[I]f the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights,” it should “engage in the second part of the analysis

2025Id. (citation and brackets omitted).

2017It is incumbent upon the trial court to engage in the second part of the analysis to discern “the nature and status of the parent-child bond, [by] paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond.” In re C.P., 901 A.2d at 520 .

2015Incumbent in the second part of the analysis is discerning “the nature and status of the parent-child bond, [by] paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond.” In re C.P., 901 A.2d at 520 .

2026We emphasize that section 2511(b) “focuses not on the parent’s conduct, but on the children and their needs.” In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d at 508 .

2009R.J.S., supra at 508 (citations omitted). ¶ 16 It is well settled that a party seeking termination of a parent's rights bears the burden of proving the grounds to so do by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard which requires evidence that is "so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa.Super.2004). ¶ 17 In the argument section of her brief, the first issue that Mother raises is whether the court erred in terminating her parental rig

2024If the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his parental rights, the court then engages in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b), a determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); B.J.Z., 207 A.3d at 921 ; J.N.M., 177 A.3d at 942 ; I.E.P., 87 A.3d at 344 .

2020Id. at 346 (citation and original brackets omitted, quotation marks in original, emphasis added).

2020Id.

2020Id.

2017As set forth in Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47 , 459 A.2d 744 (1983), and cited in Chen , a determination of whether an, individual is a third-party beneficiary involves a two-prong test. (1) the recognition of the beneficiary’s right must be appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties, and (2) the performance'must satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money- to the beneficiary or the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends, to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.... [T]he application pf the second part of the test was restricted by the first

2017As set forth in Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47 , 459 A.2d 744 (1983), and cited in Chen , a determination of whether an, individual is a third-party beneficiary involves a two-prong test. (1) the recognition of the beneficiary’s right must be appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties, and (2) the performance'must satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money- to the beneficiary or the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends, to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.... [T]he application pf the second part of the test was restricted by the first